Reid Changing Filibuster Rules

[BlindBoo]

https://www.freespeech.org/text/senate-gops-unprecedented-obstruction-five-charts

Republican blanket obstructionism of Obama's appointees is much worse than democratic obstructionism.

At this same point in Bush's presidency, the Senate had approved 91% of his nominees compared with just 76% of Obama's nominees.

Worse yet, republicans have blocked almost as many of Obama's executive appointees as the senate had done in the previous 63 years combined.

When Obama tried to turn the US into Czarist Russia in his first two years, who could blame them for wanting to filibuster his nominees? All those Czars. Something had to be done.

Proving you know squat.

Czars .......

 

[JimH52]

Remember when I said that the vitriol that you guys were heaping upon Bush was going to come back to you if ever you managed to get one of your guys in the White House; and it happened?


Guess what is going to happen next........and you're not going to like it......


The country better pray that Boner has enough testosterone to shelve everything that that Senate sends to him for the next 11 months.

Boner's refusal to move on Immigration is still the cinderblock around the neck of the GOP.

 

[Amelia]

Kudos to Levin, Manchin and Pryor for standing true to their roles as members of the legislative body which is meant to protect the voice of the minority in Washington.

You think gerrymandered congressional districts are shocking in their partisan divide? Just wait until you have courts full of people who didn't have to pass any moderate muster. The left will put in unalloyed left-leaning jurists and the right when we regain power (which looks like it could be soon) will put in unalloyed right-leaning jurists. The Senate's role was to moderate things and avoid partisan power plays. They turned their back on that role in 2009 when they pushed through O-care in spite of nationwide opposition and clearly expressed distress about it, and they did it again now that they feel the effects of their O-care actions threatening their hold on power.

 

[The T]

Alright, democrats. You asked for this one. Now that you have effectively ended the filibuster in the Senate, you have opened yourselves up to the same abuses of power you are now exercising at this very moment. Mark my words. You will regret this day down the road.

The filibuster hasn't been ended. It just can't be invoked for presidential appointments. But Republicans are still free to vote down anyone's nomination.

And Obama can appoint ANYONE he wishes, increase numbers, stack the court, and no one can stop it.

 

[Nyvin]

The Nuclear option was first considered during the Bush years with the Republican Majority threatening to use it.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Then you must disagree with our country as a Republic. Something about a pledge, some kind of allegiance.....

The filibuster is not in the constitution.

The Senate can never get anything done because of it.

The U.S. is not a republic because of the filibuster. That's an asinine claim.

The House doesn't have a filibuster.

The filibuster is simply idiotic and archaic.

The filibuster is constitutional.

The Rules and Expulsion Clause

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

(Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution)

Therefore, Smilodon, when the filibuster was enacted in 1837, it was constitutional simply because it did not interfere with the Constitution, but protected rights under the Constitution.

I didn't say it was unconstitutional.

The filibuster itself is not mentioned in the constitution.

Try rereading what I wrote.

 

[g5000]

Not sure how I feel about this. However, it is obvious the Republicans have been blocking the DC Circuit Court nominations in order to preserve the current imbalance the vacant seats have created to their favor, and it is equally obvious the Democrats are for the nuclear option so they can fill the vacant seats with Obama nominees.

No one's motives are pure, which makes discerning the wisdom of this move difficult.

Supreme Court nominees will still require a 60 vote majority.

Exactly, [MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION].

But what the R's have been doing is unprecedented, from everything I've seen. And I see no logical reason to let it continue. Ten months ago, Reid took them at their word and that was a mistake that he is apparently not going to make again.

Does this rule only apply to appointments?

What the Republicans are doing is certainly not unprecedented. Presidents and Congresses have been fighting over judicial nominations all the way back to the beginning. Since Marbury v. Madison, when the outgoing Congress created new judicial seats and the incoming President refused those who were appointed by his predecessor.

And as Darkwind pointed out, the Democrats played these same reindeer games when the GOP was the majority under Bush.

It can certainly be argued the GOP have been filibustering on a scale much larger than the Democrats did, though.

But when the GOP wanted to nuke the Democrats back in the day, Reid came out strongly against changing the rules. Now they have all changed hats, and you can't tell the pigs from the humans any more.

Like I said; no one's motives are pure.

 

[mamooth]

The House used to allow filibusters as well, until the 1841 reforms.

The first parliamentary procedure to limit House Floor debate | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
---
As the House membership grew with westward expansion and the incorporation of new territories into the Union, the impracticability of unlimited debate time on the House Floor grew apparent. The 1841 rule, adopted on the motion of Lott Warren of Georgia, required that “no member shall be allowed to speak more than one hour to any question put under debate.” It passed the House by a vote of 111 to 75—with John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (known as “Old Man Eloquent” by his peers) among those dissenting. Warren’s amendment, however, only temporarily altered the House Rules. According to Hinds’ Precedents the one-hour limit did not become a standing rule of the House until June 1842.
---

I now await the Republicans here to be consistent and damn those 1841 reforms as being a communist plot and naked power grab.

Point is, when filibusters made it impossible for the House to function, they were eliminated. That's the historical precedent. Filibusters made it impossible for the Senate to function, so they were eliminated, just as they were for the House in 1841.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

HA! Listen to you. It was mob rule for the first two years of Obama's term! Or did you somehow conveniently forget that?

Explain.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

No, of course you don't. Please stop feigning stupidity. If you are indeed truly ignorant on the subject matter of this discussion, please don't ask me to coddle you.

You can't explain.

Proves you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Then you favour Mob Rule which is what a true Democracy is.

It's only mob rule, if they held popular votes for every single issue, you idiot.

WTF do you think the filibuster was designed to do? The Democrats just today told the Founders to fuck off, and opened another door to tyranny of the majority and pounded a nail home into the coffin of the Constitution, which they desperately wish to kill as well as this Republic. YOU support it with your rhetoric spewed.

Thank me.

The founding fathers didn't use a filibuster, you ignoramus.

 

[kwc57]

U.S. Senate goes 'nuclear,' changes filibuster rules

What a relief.

Obama applaudes filibuster changes

Well past-due.

Wasn't Harry against the nuclear option before he was for it?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

No. It's mob rule within the Senate if you don't allow filibuster, you idiot!

So then I guess you agree we have mob rule in the House, right?

Different house, different RULES you twerp.

And you avoid my effective point.

Case closed!

 

[The T]

So then I guess you agree we have mob rule in the House, right?

Different house, different RULES you twerp.

And you avoid my effective point.

Case closed!

I didn't avoid a thing. I addressed it. It is YOU that I have closed the case on.

Thank Me.

 

[kwc57]

Remember when I said that the vitriol that you guys were heaping upon Bush was going to come back to you if ever you managed to get one of your guys in the White House; and it happened?


Guess what is going to happen next........and you're not going to like it......


The country better pray that Boner has enough testosterone to shelve everything that that Senate sends to him for the next 11 months.

Boner's refusal to move on Immigration is still the cinderblock around the neck of the GOP.

Amnesty is like loading the bullets in the gun you're going to be shot with. Of course, you knew that.

 

[rightwinger]

Then you favour Mob Rule which is what a true Democracy is.

It's only mob rule, if they held popular votes for every single issue, you idiot.

WTF do you think the filibuster was designed to do? The Democrats just today told the Founders to fuck off, and opened another door to tyranny of the majority and pounded a nail home into the coffin of the Constitution, which they desperately wish to kill as well as this Republic. YOU support it with your rhetoric spewed.

Thank me.

The founders put nothing about filibuster in the constitution. It s a peculiar practice of the Senate and it has had its day

 

[BDBoop]

The House used to allow filibusters as well, until the 1841 reforms.

The first parliamentary procedure to limit House Floor debate | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
---
As the House membership grew with westward expansion and the incorporation of new territories into the Union, the impracticability of unlimited debate time on the House Floor grew apparent. The 1841 rule, adopted on the motion of Lott Warren of Georgia, required that “no member shall be allowed to speak more than one hour to any question put under debate.” It passed the House by a vote of 111 to 75—with John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts (known as “Old Man Eloquent” by his peers) among those dissenting. Warren’s amendment, however, only temporarily altered the House Rules. According to Hinds’ Precedents the one-hour limit did not become a standing rule of the House until June 1842.
---

I now await the Republicans here to be consistent and damn those 1841 reforms as being a communist plot and naked power grab.

Point is, when filibusters made it impossible for the House to function, they were eliminated. That's the historical precedent. Filibusters made it impossible for the Senate to function, so they were eliminated, just as they were for the House in 1841.

Don't be holding your breath, now!

 

[HenryBHough]

The founders put nothing about filibuster in the constitution. It s a peculiar practice of the Senate and it has had its day

Indeed.


And I hope you whiny liberals will remember that when, after 2014, the rules change bites you in the ass.

And it will.

 

[mamooth]

Just wait until you have courts full of people who didn't have to pass any moderate muster

Calling the Republican senate "moderate"? Most people would refer to it as the "kook right fringe cult" muster.

Your plot to pack the courts with kook right fringe candidates has failed. You took it too far, and paid the price. Learn a lesson from it, to behave in a less extreme fashion.

 

[Nyvin]

Will the Republicans who are howling over this move restore the rule if/when they gain the majority?

The answer to both questions is, "No."

When have Democrats blocked everything the majority does...?

False premise. The Republicans do not block everything, and this "nuclear option" has only to do with circuit court nominations.

No, it applies to executive branch appointments as well. Like Janet Yellon.

 

[TemplarKormac]

https://www.freespeech.org/text/senate-gops-unprecedented-obstruction-five-charts

Republican blanket obstructionism of Obama's appointees is much worse than democratic obstructionism.

At this same point in Bush's presidency, the Senate had approved 91% of his nominees compared with just 76% of Obama's nominees.

Worse yet, republicans have blocked almost as many of Obama's executive appointees as the senate had done in the previous 63 years combined.

When Obama tried to turn the US into Czarist Russia in his first two years, who could blame them for wanting to filibuster his nominees? All those Czars. Something had to be done.

Proving you know squat.

Czars .......

Aaand, what facts did you refute my argument with just now?

Beginning in 2009, Obama has appointed a total of 38 Executive Branch Czars, which is higher than Bush's 33. Five out of the 38 appointees Obama made were ever confirmed by the Senate.